|
A lack of a legal rule of inadmissibility of granting of protection to designations, that are not identical to the International Generic Names, but similar to them, the specific circumstances connected with perception of the designation by consumers, should be examined by the court
The article 1523 of the Civil Code of Russian Federation does not specify a notion of an interested party, does not include limitations on types of interest, the public that can be interested in contestation of providing a protection to a trademark. In this case, an interested party can be any person proven a real interest in ceasing of protection of a registered trademark.
If a person packs goods in a package where other person illegally puts a trademark, the actions of the first person may be considered as making counterfeit goods, introduction and infringement of trademark exclusive rights.
Courts mistakenly concluded that the fact of infringement of exclusive rights on architectural project can be established only by comparison of design materials, prepared by other person.
Exposure of infringement of copyright on architectural work can be possible as by comparing of a project with an object as by comparing of two objects. Each of these ways of proving can confirm infringement of copyright on architectural work. A way of the proving is chosen by a plaintiff.
In case of conducting of measures, according to the Article 331(2) of the Customs Code of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, infringement of intellectual property rights is not confirmed, this cannot be considered to be an illegal suspension of release of goods by the Custom.
Well-known Trademark: Evidence of Use. This article refers to a case where our Agency represented the interests of MTS Company regarding refusal to acknowledge its trademark as well-known on the territory of the Russian Federation. Commercial Courts of three instances confirmed the MTS trademark status as a well-known.
| 
